Tough (Nerd) Love for a 'Manosphere' Victim

With my kids rapidly approaching dating age and being well aware that I might well be a poor source of advice on it, I keep an antenna out for advice on that matter.

A favorite writer who focuses on such advice is Harris O'Malley, a.k.a., Dr. Nerdlove, and he hit one out of the park earlier this year when someone who listens to the likes of Andrew Tate showed up with a question to the effect of, "Help, science says I'm doomed to be single!"

I really appreciate two things about his letter, the first of them being what is really an all-purpose calling-out of people who wrongly claim that "science" backs them up:

Leaving aside that this leads me to think that the source was a study from Dude, Trust Me University or Dr. ChatGPT, the rare times that people do post a particular study, it becomes clear that they didn't actually read it beyond someone else's summary. The conclusions people derive tend to have very little to do with the study's conclusions and usually involves either overlooking the way the data is misunderstood, small sample sizes, poor-to-non-existent controls, self-report surveys, the authors saying "the results are within the margin of error and so are indicative of more experimentation" and occasional straight up P-hacking.

This he follows up with an intelligent discussion of -- gasp! -- an actual paper written by actual scientists.

But O'Malley isn't done, because the question betrays a deeper problem than ignorance about science.

There is also an astounding degree of ignorance about oneself by the questioner that can't be answered except by introspection, which Dr. Nerdlove successfully points out and motivates, assuming the letter writer really is interested in finding female companionship:

Ah, because it means that -- if we accept your premise -- you are "stuck" dating someone who is also of average looks. Let's put aside the assumption that this somehow means that the "average" women are not good looking and instead focus on what you don't seem to realize that you're saying.

Because I don't think it has occurred to you that, as you're complaining that your looks condemn you to date someone who isn't exceptional looking ... you're expecting someone who is exceptional looking to be willing to overlook your average appearance. Not to put too fine a point on it but ... why is that ok for them but not for you? Why are you asking them to give you grace and see beyond your average appearance, when you aren't willing to do the same? Why -- again, if we accept your premise -- is it not ok for an exceptionally attractive woman to prefer dating an exceptionally attractive man, when you yourself also want to date an exceptionally attractive woman? You would think that what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Well, the answer here is obvious: because of what it says about you. This is the core of what Red Pill and masculinity influencers peddle: the anxiety of being somehow "lesser" among men. If you are the sort of person who can "only" date "average" women and not dimes who make your friends and peers and randos jealous ... well, clearly you're not a Top G Alpha Player. You're just some Average Frustrated Chump, to dip back into ancient PUA parlance.

While I would hope that no child of mine ends up being this clueless, I remember being a child and a young adult. Introspection and seeing things from the perspective of others are learned skills, and many aspects of our culture discourage both.

Being aware of the latest ways people are being pressured to conform can't hurt, and this example clearly shows both that real adults aren't what Ayn Rand called second-handers, and that being second-handed is hardly the way to achieve happiness. Only by knowing oneself, and respecting the fact that relationships involve shared values can one really hope to find or be worthy of a romantic partner.

-- CAV

Return of Tariff Loot Not Unprecedented

There may be good news for Americans who paid Trump's "emergency" IEEPA tariffs: The Court of International Trade, which ruled the tariffs illegal before The Supreme Court concurred, has relevant experience dealing with a similar situation:

Nearly 30 years ago, the Supreme Court invalidated something called the Harbor Maintenance Tax as it applied to exported goods. There were as many as 100,000 potential claimants after the high court's March 1998 decision. It fell to the trade court to handle the refunds question. By late 2000, businesses had received more than $730 million. A central figure back then remains a key trade court judge today.

Judge Jane Restani, a Reagan appointee with a fondness for hiking, sat on the original three-judge panel that heard the challenge to the harbor tax and was then assigned to devise an orderly process for administering refunds after it had been in effect for more than 10 years.

With hundreds of cases before the court, she zeroed in on one test case to govern them all.

"When we had the experience with them back then, it worked out," said lawyer Brian Goldstein, who represented the retail conglomerate that challenged the tax, the U.S. Shoe Corp. "I do believe that the court will, together with the party litigants, fashion a program and process of refund. I don't know how long it will take."

This is good news, and somewhat amusing, as it is a direct result of the Trump Administration attempting to delay paying the refunds. The court in that case sent the matter of how refunds would be paid to the CIT.

-- CAV

The Endangerment Finding: Down, But Not Out

Writing in the Washington Examiner, Steve Milloy of Junk Science explains that the recent rescission of the EPA's Endangerment Finding is far from Job Done to save the American fossil fuel industry:

West Virginia v. EPA ... didn't explicitly overturn Massachusetts v. EPA because the red-state litigants never specifically raised the issue, and the Supreme Court chose to rule as narrowly as possible.

So, here's the problem: While the Trump EPA is now saying that the Obama endangerment finding is illegal under the holding in West Virginia v. EPA (i.e., no congressional authorization), Massachusetts v. EPA remains on the books as good law.

Simply rescinding the Obama decision, as the Trump EPA just did, is technically just a change in policy, not a change in the operative law. In the event that Democrats win the White House in 2028, you can bet they will reinstate the endangerment finding as soon as possible in 2029, citing Massachusetts v. EPA in doing so. [links omitted, bold added]

Here we go again.

Such are the hazards of making the "biggest deregulatory move in history" by fiat, executive or administrative.

Milloy explains what Trump needs to do to cement this good part of his legacy, and that's to have the Justice Department challenge Massachusetts v. EPA and the EPA rescind a separate endangerment finding that applies to stationary sources of greenhouse emissions.

-- CAV

P.S. For the various Trump people who come by from time to time to complain to me when I criticize Trump/don't criticize the Democrats (whom he too frequently imitates) enough, this is two days in a row I have concurred with something he has done, and wanted that thing to be as effective as possible.

We're Finally Fighting Back

Will it be enough?

Over the weekend, the United States and Israel launched widespread, coordinated attacks against Iran. The apparent aims are of neutering that country's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capabilities, and toppling its theocratic regime, which has been at war with both countries and the West in general ever since 1979.

Yaron Brook's initial reaction. Commentary starts about 1:50.

It's about time, and I have heard that the top echelon of its leadership, including "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamanei, died during an incredibly short time span.

Good riddance.

The case for attacking Iran -- something that should have been done decades ago -- is clear-cut. Less so is whether the sitting President -- a thoroughly corrupt and amoral whim-worshiper -- will carry through this endeavor to the point that Iran no longer poses a threat to the West.

Worse, as clear as it is that we should obliterate this regime, it is equally clear that Trump does not have the authority to order military operations of this magnitude without Congressional approval. I am concerned that Congress will either fail to offer its belated authorization or even attempt to end our participation in this war before it has been prosecuted to the extent it should be.

I can only hope our militaries do enough damage before things change enough politically that the regime is effectively done, and the Iranian people are able to establish the freer, rights-respecting government they seem to want. By its nature, such a government would be at minimum cease being a threat, and would likely be friendly to our countries and its neighbors. At worse, almost any other government would at least be less of a threat.

Having noted my own reaction to this generally welcome turn of events, I'll end with a short listing of items I gleaned over the weekend, in no particular order:

• A Rundown on the War as of 2-28 -- roles of U.S. and Israeli forces, objectives, Iranian retaliation notes, Iranian casualties not yet known
• Garry Kasparov -- the good of waging this war and the bad of who's in charge in a nutshell
• Agustina Vergara Cid -- expresses qualified agreement with Ilya Somin's analysis of the constitutionality of the war and its feasibility as a means of achieving regime change
• Adam Mossoff -- counters Ilya Somin's assessment of the wisdom and morality of the attacks

Although I have not yet had the opportunity to listen to any of Yaron Brook's so far daily updates on the war, I am looking forward to them and unreservedly recommend them, based on his past commentary in general and on the Hamas war in particular. Brook's initial reaction is embedded above.

-- CAV

Four Neat Things

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. The site hackernews.love, based on comments from the knowledgeable readers at Hacker News, showcases the successful innovations that received pelters there, way back when.

For each success, there are several quotes, such as "It does not seem very 'viral' or income-generating." -- Brandon M, followed by the market's contrary verdict, e.g., "Dropbox IPO'd in 2018 at a $12B valuation. Drew Houston later thanked BrandonM by name when Dropbox went public."

2. By coincidence, I learned about two more ways to employ the humble bathroom mirror as a reminder, one digital and one analog.

Looking for a better way to display my calendar, I learned that some people employ smart mirrors for the task.

On the other end of the technology spectrum -- if you discount the technology behind erasable markers -- Heloise recommends using those.

I just use post-it notes myself, but I love the idea that there are people out there using smart mirrors!

3. Allison Green's recent post on workplace romance includes a few that worked out very well. She calls my favorite of the lot "the sandwich maneuver."

4. Years ago, the Internet Djinni granted my wish -- in the form of a site called junkyarddog.com -- for a cheap Mercedes part after my wife had a fender-bender in the car she was borrowing from her Dad.

I thought they'd disappeared, but in the process of writing this post, I learned otherwise.

I guess now, rather than mere relief at discovering a "replacement," I get to appreciate the fact that there are at least two good ways to find car parts on the internet

Based on a search for a part I recently had to replace in my car, they are different-enough from each other that they might be good for different needs.

See my previous post for how I used Junkyard Dog. Car-Part.com provides a list of dealers and prices, instead, and includes new parts.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Corrected URL to link in Item 4.

Another 'Eight Glasses of Water a Day'

By coincidence, two items I ran across this morning reminded me of unsolicited medical advice, and I hadn't even gotten to Trump's latest lunatic cabinet nominee.

Although I walk for an hour most days of the week, I had no idea that I was "supposed" to be taking 10,000 steps a day. (Maybe hectoring everyone over this is part of why Bobby K pushes "wearables.")

I'd heard the number before, but not being prone to health fads, I never bothered to look into it, and probably would have blown off anyone who suggested it.

Nevertheless, it's a thing, and it's been debunked:

Walking seems an unlikely exercise to generate debate. But as you point out, that's exactly what happened with the near-mythic 10,000 steps. This number was interpreted as the ideal amount of walking per day. That number actually comes from a Japanese advertising campaign that, in 1965, promoted a brand of pedometer. More recent studies have challenged the 10,000 steps, coming in both lower and higher. Now, new research suggests it's not total steps that matter most to heart health. It's the length of time spent walking at a steady pace that is most important. [bold added]

The two physicians addressing this claim explain more of the research support and reasoning behind that statement at the above link.

Before you say Good, now I won't have to hear that one any more, don't forget that eight glasses of water a day! has been debunked for quite some time, with periodic reminders bubbling up in the press now and again ... and again and again.

So, yes, you will hear get to hear that again.

For anyone who has trouble shutting down the kinds of nostrums MAHA wants you to hear about nonstop, the other, related piece I bumped into offers a graceful way to brush off unsolicited medical advice from the well-meaning. For more persistent types, the grey rock method might come in handy, but I hope it doesn't come to that for you.

-- CAV

Somin on Trump's New, Also Illegal Tariffs

Writing in the Boston Globe, Ilya Somin, who helped bring down Trump's IEEPA tariffs, explains why Trump's latest power grab would "undermine the constitutional system almost as much as the earlier tariffs did."

It's a relatively short piece, but I'll pass along two highlights.

First, the new Section 122 tariffs are illegal and Trump knows they are:

Shortly after the court's decision, Trump issued a proclamation invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose 10 percent global tariffs. The next day, he increased the rate to 15 percent -- though as of Tuesday, the administration implemented only 10 percent tariffs. Section 122 only permits tariffs for up to 150 days in response to "fundamental international payments problems" that cause "large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits" or "an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar," or are to cooperate with other countries in addressing an "international balance-of-payments disequilibrium."

As conservative legal commentator Andrew McCarthy explained in National Review, none of these legal preconditions to the use of Section 122 exist. Nor is the scheme part of some plan of international cooperation.

...

Trump's proclamation imposing the Section 122 tariffs cites trade deficits as a justification. But as the Trump administration itself argued in the IEEPA case, Section 122 does not apply to trade deficits. In fact, that is one reason why the administration wanted to use IEEPA to impose the tariffs. [links omitted, bold added]

Second -- and my best guess as to why the new tariffs are "almost" as bad as the old -- is that there is a numeric limit of 15% in Section 122.

That said, while 15% is lower than some of Trump's IEEPA tariffs, it isn't really much of a limit, given how loosely Trump is interpreting the law -- on top of blatantly ignoring the fact that the required conditions for using it haven't even been met:

Justice Neil Gorsuch's concurring opinion in the IEEPA case also relied on the nondelegation doctrine, which limits the extent to which Congress can delegate its authority to executive discretion. The limits of delegation are far from clear. But the Supreme Court held last year that a delegation of authority to impose taxes or fees must have a "floor" and a "ceiling" and that the degree of "guidance" required from Congress is greater "when an agency action will 'affect the entire national economy' than when it addresses a narrow, technical issue." The power to impose 15 percent tariffs -- the highest tariffs since the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariffs that exacerbated the Great Depression -- is unquestionably one that affects the "entire national economy." And Trump's permissive interpretation of the law would let him impose those rates at almost any time. [link omitted, bold added]

As Somin indicates, the new tariffs will likely be challenged soon. It will be interesting to see if and when the courts enjoin them, given the fact that companies already feel the need to sue to recover the money this Administration looted from them last time.

-- CAV

P.S. I hear Trump bloviated/demonized immigrants/tossed red meat to his base last night. The lengthy transcript is here for anyone who is interested. I read a few sections, and it looks to be about what one would expect.

To wit, Trump asked for another participation ribbon after casting himself as the one thing standing between us and doom: I've always wanted the Congressional Medal of Honor, but I was informed I'm not allowed to give it to myself...

This loser -- whom congressional Republicans refuse to corral -- just cannot allow anyone else, even an actual winner, enjoy the limelight for even a few seconds.